Shankar Prasad Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. - 11. the representationist should have in his possession sufficient and reliable proof of making such representation.orderr.k. merathia, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the state,2. by order dated 11.09.2001, six week's time was granted to the state for filling counter affidavit, when the case was taken up next i.e. on 24.11.2002 four week's time as a last chance was granted to the state for filing counter affidavit.3. today, when the case was takenup again prayer was made for adjournment.learned counsel for the state stated thatletters were sent to the concerned respondents.4. thus inspite of the said orders having been passed and communicated from the office of the learned advocate appearing for the state, the respondents have not chosen either to send instructions to the learned counsel for the state or file counter affidavit in this case. in these circumstances, i am not inclined to grant any further time in this case. the director, primary educatlpn human resource development . department, jharkhand (respondent no. 2) is directed to look into the matter and take necessary action in this regard against the erring officers, if he finds that in spite of knowledge of the orders of this court, the officers have been negligent.5. in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of b.sc. trained scale from the date of passing the b.sc. trained examination. his further prayer is for promotion to the post of head master. learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the documents annexed with the writ petition for showing that although the petitioner was senior to sarvshri mihir kumar mandal, mihir kumar bandopad-hyay and praphul chand mahto, they have been granted b.sc. trained scale ignoring the case of the petitioner. he has further submitted that by order dated 18th march, 1996 issued by the district superintendent of education, paschim singhbhum, chaibasa, several persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of head master again ignoring the case of the petitioner. the further case of the petitioner is that he made several representations (annexure-6 series) but his case has not been considered for grant of b.sc. trained scale and promotion to the post of head master and he has not received any communication in this regard by the concerned respondents.6. this is a very sorry state of affair that neither the concerned respondents before whom the representations were made did take any action on the said representations nor did they chose to instruct their counsel and file counter affidavit in this case.7. in a number of cases, this court has to pass orders only fixing time for taking a decision/action on the representations. due to huge pendency, the cases are taken up in their turn, after a long gap. until, this court directs, they do not take any action. in various cases they move only after orders are passed in contempt petitions filed for non-compliance of the court's order. this court has to do all these exercise so that they may move and take a decision, pass a reasoned order and oblige all concerned. in other words it appears that the main work of this court is now to ask/remind the officer/authorities to perform their aforesaid duty.8. litigations are increasing and lingering in this court due to such actions/ inactions on the part of the authorities of the government and the government departments. usually they do not consider and pass reasoned orders on the representations made by the affected parties. if representation is made to authority, it is his duty either to consider the same himself and pass a reasoned order or send the same to the competent authority/committee for consideration and for passing reasoned order on the said representation. then they should communicate the same to the rep-resentationist on the address given in their representation. if the authorities discharge their duty as aforesaid, it will certainly help the justice delivery system especially under article 226 of the constitution of india. if the reasons are there before the court, in support of the action in question, the case can be decided expeditiously.9. i am constrained to pass this general order in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. in almost every case where a representation is not disposed of as per the law, the representationist is to move this court. this court ultimately gives a direction for disposing of the representation by a reasoned order and as per the law within a given time.10. henceforth, if any representation is filed before any government authorities/ or the authorities of the government departments or the authorities, which have been held to be state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of' india, the authorities concerned will consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order as per the law as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation. if the authority is of the view that he is not competent to dispose of the representation, he will refer the same to the competent authority/commit tee immediately on receipt of the representation and the said authority/committee shall consider and pass reasoned order on the said representation as early as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation. such order passed on the representation, must be communicated to the representationist at the address given in the representation. however, if for any genuine and unavoidable reason, the concerned authority/committee is unable to dispose of the representation, the representationist must be informed the date by which his representation will be disposed of.11. the representationist should have in his possession sufficient and reliable proof of making such representation.12. if the aforesaid direction is not complied with, it may be treated as a violation of this order.13. coming to the case in hand, the petitioner will make a fresh and detailed representation to the district superintendent of education, east singhbhum, jamshedpur within a period of four weeks from today alongwith the copy of this order. the said authority will consider the same, pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.14. let a copy of this order be sent tothe chief secretary, government ofjharkhand for its necessary circulation. acopy of this order may be handed over tomr. shamim akhtar, s.c.ii for the state ofjharkhand.

Judgment:
ORDER

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State,

2. By order dated 11.09.2001, six week's time was granted to the State for filling counter affidavit, when the case was taken up next i.e. on 24.11.2002 four week's time as a last chance was granted to the State for filing counter affidavit.

3. Today, when the case was takenup again prayer was made for adjournment.Learned counsel for the State stated thatletters were sent to the concerned respondents.

4. Thus inspite of the said orders having been passed and communicated from the office of the learned advocate appearing for the State, the Respondents have not chosen either to send instructions to the learned counsel for the State or file counter affidavit in this case. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any further time in this case. The Director, Primary Educatlpn Human Resource Development . Department, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2) is directed to look into the matter and take necessary action in this regard against the erring officers, if he finds that in spite of knowledge of the orders of this Court, the Officers have been negligent.

5. In this Writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale from the date of passing the B.Sc. Trained examination. His further prayer is for promotion to the post of Head Master. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the documents annexed with the Writ petition for showing that although the petitioner was senior to Sarvshri Mihir Kumar Mandal, Mihir Kumar Bandopad-hyay and Praphul Chand Mahto, they have been granted B.Sc. Trained Scale ignoring the case of the petitioner. He has further submitted that by order dated 18th March, 1996 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Paschim Singhbhum, Chaibasa, several persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Head Master again ignoring the case of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that he made several representations (Annexure-6 series) but his case has not been considered for grant of B.Sc. Trained Scale and promotion to the post of Head Master and he has not received any communication in this regard by the concerned Respondents.

6. This is a very sorry state of affair that neither the concerned Respondents before whom the representations were made did take any action on the said representations nor did they chose to instruct their counsel and file counter affidavit in this case.

7. In a number of cases, this Court has to pass orders only fixing time for taking a decision/action on the representations. Due to huge pendency, the cases are taken up in their turn, after a long gap. Until, this Court directs, they do not take any action. In various cases they move only after orders are passed in Contempt petitions filed for non-compliance of the Court's order. This Court has to do all these exercise so that they may move and take a decision, pass a reasoned order and oblige all concerned. In other words it appears that the main work of this Court is now to ask/remind the Officer/authorities to perform their aforesaid duty.

8. Litigations are increasing and lingering in this Court due to such actions/ inactions on the part of the authorities of the Government and the Government departments. Usually they do not consider and pass reasoned orders on the representations made by the affected parties. If representation is made to authority, it is his duty either to consider the same himself and pass a reasoned order or send the same to the competent authority/committee for consideration and for passing reasoned order on the said representation. Then they should communicate the same to the rep-resentationist on the address given in their representation. If the authorities discharge their duty as aforesaid, it will certainly help the justice delivery system especially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the reasons are there before the Court, in support of the action in question, the case can be decided expeditiously.

9. I am constrained to pass this general order in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. In almost every case where a representation is not disposed of as per the law, the representationist is to move this Court. This Court ultimately gives a direction for disposing of the representation by a reasoned order and as per the law within a given time.

10. Henceforth, if any representation is filed before any Government authorities/ or the authorities of the Government departments or the authorities, which have been held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of' India, the authorities concerned will consider the same and dispose it of by a reasoned order as per the law as expeditiously as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation. If the authority is of the view that he is not competent to dispose of the representation, he will refer the same to the competent authority/commit tee immediately on receipt of the representation and the said authority/committee shall consider and pass reasoned order on the said representation as early as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation. Such order passed on the representation, must be communicated to the representationist at the address given in the representation. However, if for any genuine and unavoidable reason, the concerned authority/committee is unable to dispose of the representation, the representationist must be informed the date by which his representation will be disposed of.

11. The representationist should have in his possession sufficient and reliable proof of making such representation.

12. If the aforesaid direction is not complied with, it may be treated as a violation of this order.

13. Coming to the case in hand, the petitioner will make a fresh and detailed representation to the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur within a period of four weeks from today alongwith the copy of this order. The said authority will consider the same, pass a reasoned order and communicate it to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent tothe Chief Secretary, Government ofJharkhand for its necessary circulation. Acopy of this Order may be handed over toMr. Shamim Akhtar, S.C.II for the State ofJharkhand.